I’m Michael Voris coming to you from Rome where we are here covering the so-called Synod on the Youth — and where it is becoming increasingly, not just clear, but obvious that the point of this synod is the normalization of homosexuality in the Church.
In fact, this has been the plan all along, Cdl, George Pell pointed out back in the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family.
You’ll recall that first Synod on the Family in 2014 and then the follow-up synod the next year were the synods which produced the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia and all the attendant controversy over divorced and civilly remarried Catholics being admitted to Holy Communion.
That controversy spun off the further controversy of the Dubia, and the Church from that moment on was off to the races as orthodox and heterodox formed around theological issues.
But underlying all this was what Abp. Viganò correctly identified as the “homosexual current” in the Church and specifically the Vatican. Everything that has happened in the Francis papacy traces directly back to the issue of homosexuality — even Amoris Laetitia.
In 2014, George Pell, the cardinal of Sydney, Australia, came out on camera and said the entire question about divorced and civilly remarried Catholics and Holy Communion was nothing more than a “stalking horse” — his words — to grease the skids for the question of homosexulaity being accepted in the Church.
Even without changing the teaching — which can’t be done — the practice can attitude can be changed, just like the teaching on contraception.
The teaching, re-affirmed by Paul VI in 1968, although in different terms than the previous two thousand years, sit there firmly in place alongside all the other teachings, but it is almost completely rejected, ignored and even mocked in the day to day life of the vast majority of Catholics.
That rejection of Church teaching in one area of sexuality opened the door — or Pandora’s Box — for rejection in other areas as well. And since the 1960s, the flood of homosexual men into the priesthood and then their subsequent rise to the episcopate and the College of Cardinals has created the environment where they feel perfectly able to assert their will and force the issue.
And that is what this synod is about — and it’s all it’s about.
In the weeks leading up to the synod, Cdl. Baldisseri, for example, simply lied about the inclusion — for the first time ever in an official Church document — the acronym “LGBT.”
He said it came from an earlier working document, which it did not, and when he was discovered in his lie by reporters, he took the Pope Francis approach of telling the reporters he wasn’t going to change or do a thing. And behind the scenes, again in the run-up to the official opening of the synod earlier this month, multiple homosexual activist groups have been working with the various planning committees helping craft the language and agenda.
For example, the group led by gay-cheerleader Chicago Cdl. Cupich wants the Church to recognize, “accept and even honor … other forms of family” — what he terms every family unit. At the same time, Honduran Cdl. Rodriguez Maradiaga is pushing for “pastoral care” for “marriage between homosexuals, surrogate pregnancy and adoption by same-sex couples.”
The fix is in and it’s screamingly obvious. This is the moment the homosexual clergy has been pushing for, their brass ring, for the past 50 years.
And if a certain percentage of them rape altar boys and destroy the lives and vocations of seminarians, oh well, the Pope just ignores it and they know it — so in effect, nothing slows them down.
These men, the cardinals involved in this, are absolute deviance and degenerates, at the very least in terms of theology and who knows what else.
They lash out at victims, just as Pope Francis did in Chile.
They accuse men who were raped by homosexual clergy of gossip.
They tell them to shut up. They tell them to trust.
They are steamrolling over everything in their path — souls, the faith, truth, it doesn’t matter, rushing like madmen to their finish line.
They are so depraved in their ambitions to use the Church to normalize their evil that they care about nothing else.
That is the headline here in Rome, the crushing of any and all opposition, on the march toward the blessing of gay sex.
In 2014, Church Militant came here to cover the synod, and, like others, immediately detected that homosexual undercurrent in the working documents — especially the mid-term relatio.
We’d like to take you back for a moment to that very revealing exchange between us and Abp. Bruno Forte, who had actually written into the relatio that “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a further space in our communities?”
Forte’s non-response, played off laughingly, like demons do, was very suspicious at the time for those who were listening intently like Church Militant. That small section in the mid-term document was the camel’s nose under the tent.
James Martin appeared on the scene announcing unprecedented signs of hope for gays.
Other Vaticanistas called it an earthquake and beyond remarkable — and it was. Every homo-cleric in the Church got the message. The time had come, at last, to have the Church bless sodomy in the name of charity and mercy and justice.
And four years later — almost to the day — these same sodomite clergy have assembled again, using children and young people as their cover, to look like and pretend they are listening to the young.
They will produce an already determined likely already written document, “vote” on it and then declare the Church has changed, not necessarily the official teaching, but in every other way conceivable.
Pope Francis will more than likely produce some statement or document and then the gay cabal here in Rome will assert all this evil as being the work of the Holy Spirit, continue to advance homosexual clerics, cover for their evil, refuse to answer media questions, work on producing a fake investigation, attack victims while pretending to care for them and allow good, mostly young, priests to be completely plowed under by their homosexualist bishops.
Anyone who thinks the Church is pulling out of this maelstrom anytime soon simply doesn’t understand the situation. If there was ever a time for the faithful laity to step up, this is it.
Stop giving money. Start demanding adherence to the teachings of the Church.
To bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was a painful decision for me, and remains so. But I am an old man, one who knows he must soon give an accounting to the Judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him who can cast body and soul into hell. A Judge who, even in his infinite mercy, will render to every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved. Anticipating the dreadful question from that Judge — “How could you, who had knowledge of the truth, keep silent in the midst of falsehood and depravity?” — what answer could I give?
I testified fully aware that my testimony would bring alarm and dismay to many eminent persons: churchmen, fellow bishops, colleagues with whom I had worked and prayed. I knew many would feel wounded and betrayed. I expected that some would in their turn assail me and my motives. Most painful of all, I knew that many of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop’s charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and grave neglect of duty. Yet I believe that my continued silence would put many souls at risk, and would certainly damn my own. Having reported multiple times to my superiors, and even to the pope, the aberrant behavior of Theodore McCarrick, I could have publicly denounced the truths of which I was aware earlier. If I have some responsibility in this delay, I repent for that. This delay was due to the gravity of the decision I was going to take, and to the long travail of my conscience.
I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible. Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.
Therefore I spoke. For it is the conspiracy of silence that has wrought and continues to wreak great harm in the Church — harm to so many innocent souls, to young priestly vocations, to the faithful at large. With regard to my decision, which I have taken in conscience before God, I willingly accept every fraternal correction, advice, recommendation, and invitation to progress in my life of faith and love for Christ, the Church and the pope.
Let me restate the key points of my testimony.
• In November 2000 the U.S. nuncio Archbishop Montalvo informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behavior with seminarians and priests.
• In December 2006 the new U.S. nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behavior with yet another priest.
• In December of 2006 I myself wrote a memo to the Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone, and personally delivered it to the Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, calling for the pope to bring extraordinary disciplinary measures against McCarrick to forestall future crimes and scandal. This memo received no response.
• In April 2008 an open letter to Pope Benedict by Richard Sipe was relayed by the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Levada, to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, containing further accusations of McCarrick’s sleeping with seminarians and priests. I received this a month later, and in May 2008 I myself delivered a second memo to the then Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Fernando Filoni, reporting the claims against McCarrick and calling for sanctions against him. This second memo also received no response.
• In 2009 or 2010 I learned from Cardinal Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, that Pope Benedict had ordered McCarrick to cease public ministry and begin a life of prayer and penance. The nuncio Sambi communicated the Pope’s orders to McCarrick in a voice heard down the corridor of the nunciature.
• In November 2011 Cardinal Ouellet, the new Prefect of Bishops, repeated to me, the new nuncio to the U.S., the Pope’s restrictions on McCarrick, and I myself communicated them to McCarrick face-to-face.
• On June 21, 2013, toward the end of an official assembly of nuncios at the Vatican, Pope Francis spoke cryptic words to me criticizing the U.S. episcopacy.
• On June 23, 2013, I met Pope Francis face-to-face in his apartment to ask for clarification, and the Pope asked me, “il cardinale McCarrick, com’è (Cardinal McCarrick — what do you make of him)?”– which I can only interpret as a feigning of curiosity in order to discover whether or not I was an ally of McCarrick. I told him that McCarrick had sexually corrupted generations of priests and seminarians, and had been ordered by Pope Benedict to confine himself to a life of prayer and penance.
• Instead, McCarrick continued to enjoy the special regard of Pope Francis and was given new responsibilities and missions by him.
• McCarrick was part of a network of bishops promoting homosexuality who, exploiting their favor with Pope Francis, manipulated episcopal appointments so as to protect themselves from justice and to strengthen the homosexual network in the hierarchy and in the Church at large.
• Pope Francis himself has either colluded in this corruption, or, knowing what he does, is gravely negligent in failing to oppose it and uproot it.
I invoked God as my witness to the truth of my claims, and none has been shown false. Cardinal Ouellet has written to rebuke me for my temerity in breaking silence and leveling such grave accusations against my brothers and superiors, but in truth his remonstrance confirms me in my decision and, even more, serves to vindicate my claims, severally and as a whole.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he spoke with me about McCarrick’s situation prior to my leaving for Washington to begin my post as nuncio.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he communicated to me in writing the conditions and restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that these restrictions forbade McCarrick to travel or to make public appearances.
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that the Congregation of Bishops, in writing, first through the nuncio Sambi and then once again through me, required McCarrick to lead a life of prayer and penance.
What does Cardinal Ouellet dispute?
• Cardinal Ouellet disputes the possibility that Pope Francis could have taken in important information about McCarrick on a day when he met scores of nuncios and gave each only a few moments of conversation. But this was not my testimony. My testimony is that at a second, private meeting, I informed the Pope, answering his own question about Theodore McCarrick, then Cardinal archbishop emeritus of Washington, prominent figure of the Church in the US, telling the Pope that McCarrick had sexually corrupted his own seminarians and priests. No pope could forget that.
• Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in his archives of letters signed by Pope Benedict or Pope Francis regarding sanctions on McCarrick. But this was not my testimony. My testimony was that he has in his archives key documents – irrespective of provenance – incriminating McCarrick and documenting the measures taken in his regard, and other proofs on the cover-up regarding his situation. And I confirm this again.
• Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in the files of his predecessor, Cardinal Re, of “audience memos” imposing on McCarrick the restrictions already mentioned. But this was not my testimony. My testimony is that there are other documents: for instance, a note from Card Re notex-Audientia SS.mi, signed by either the Secretary of State or by the Substitute.
• Cardinal Ouellet disputes that it is false to present the measures taken against McCarrick as “sanctions” decreed by Pope Benedict and canceled by Pope Francis. True. They were not technically “sanctions” but provisions, “conditions and restrictions.” To quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view they are exactly the same thing.
In brief, Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims that I did and do make, and disputes claims I don’t make and never made.
There is one point on which I must absolutely refute what Cardinal Ouellet wrote. The Cardinal states that the Holy See was only aware of “rumors,” which were not enough to justify disciplinary measures against McCarrick. I affirm to the contrary that the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof, and that the responsible persons nevertheless chose not to intervene or were prevented from doing so. Compensation by the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen to the victims of McCarrick’s sexual abuse, the letters of Fr. Ramsey, of the nuncios Montalvo in 2000 and Sambi in 2006, of Dr. Sipe in 2008, my two notes to the superiors of the Secretariat of State who described in detail the concrete allegations against McCarrick; are all these just rumors? They are official correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy. The crimes reported were very serious, including those of attempting to give sacramental absolution to accomplices in perverse acts, with subsequent sacrilegious celebration of Mass. These documents specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts. They are kept in the appropriate archives; no extraordinary investigation is needed to recover them.
In the public remonstrances directed at me I have noted two omissions, two dramatic silences. The first silence regards the plight of the victims. The second regards the underlying reason why there are so many victims, namely, the corrupting influence of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the hierarchy. As to the first, it is dismaying that, amid all the scandals and indignation, so little thought should be given to those damaged by the sexual predations of those commissioned as ministers of the gospel. This is not a matter of settling scores or sulking over the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical careers. It is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter of how church historians may evaluate this or that papacy. This is about souls. Many souls have been and are even now imperiled of their eternal salvation.
As to the second silence, this very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names. This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons. It is an enormous hypocrisy to condemn the abuse, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality. It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.
Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large. But these violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds — whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming.
It is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage. But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry. It is to pretend that a means, an instrument, is in fact the main motive.
Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to flourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church. I am not surprised that in calling attention to these plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion.
Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy. I am urging no such thing. I pray every day for Pope Francis — more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32).
In closing, I wish to repeat my appeal to my brother bishops and priests who know that my statements are true and who can so testify, or who have access to documents that can put the matter beyond doubt. You too are faced with a choice. You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption. You can make excuses, compromises and justification that put off the day of reckoning. You can console yourselves with the falsehood and the delusion that it will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on.
On the other hand, you can choose to speak. You can trust Him who told us, “the truth will set you free.” I do not say it will be easy to decide between silence and speaking. I urge you to consider which choice– on your deathbed, and then before the just Judge — you will not regret having made.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò 19 Ottobre 2018 Arcivescovo tit. di Ulpiana Nunzio Apostolico
October 18, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A friend once told me the story of how, when he was a graduate student at Harvard Divinity School, he went before the faculty to present his idea for a doctoral thesis: the obedience of Jesus in the Gospel of John. There was a moment’s pause, and one of the senior professors, a famous liberal, leaned forward and said: “This is an unacceptable topic. Obedience is the root of all evils.”
Such an attitude was understandable in a German scholar who had lived through National Socialism, when thousands of citizens suppressed the voice of their consciences and followed a crazed dictator into horrific disaster, in the name of obedience to leader, people, and nation.
Such an attitude is also understandable today in the Catholic Church, when the unveiling of the corruption of prelates at all levels prompts the faithful to withhold not only funding but also moral cooperation and intellectual assent. “Obedience—to them? Are you kidding?” might become a common refrain. And bishops had better be aware of the long process of purification, internal discipline, and extensive rebuilding that will be necessary before they can reasonably expect a better response. Put differently, bishops will have to work their cassocks off to win and retain the respect of their flocks, now that they have squandered it utterly.
The modern crisis of obedience is a crisis of authority abused and trust misplaced. In the political sphere, authority has too often not been directed to the common good of the people but to the private good of the ruler or special interest groups, a phenomenon that has become rampant in American federal politics. Something similar can be seen in the manner in which some prelates, religious superiors, or husbands and fathers have ruled more for their own comfort and convenience than for the genuine good of their subjects. The rise of liberalism (including feminism) is, at least in part, a reaction against real abuses, even as Protestantism, grandfather of modern liberalism, justified its dissent in the face of a late medieval Christendom of moral laxity and religious abuses. Taking all this together with twentieth-century fascism and communism, we are perhaps not surprised by the Harvard professor’s generalization, for blind obedience to those who claim power over souls can be a terrible thing.
But there is a deeper problem lurking here as well.
The statement that “obedience is the root of all evils” perfectly expresses the attitude of modernity. The so-called Enlightenment was born out of a desire to be free from authority, to “think for oneself” and stand in no relation of dependency on anyone else—to be, in short, the god of one’s own world. We find Immanuel Kant saying in his short essay “What is Enlightenment?” that man can be free only if he is free from everyone and dares to think by himself, for himself (aude sapere); as long as he is dependent on another, he is a slave.
Such thoughts flow from the same destructive delusion that fallen man has always entertained, after the fatal disobedience of Adam and Eve. Though dressed in the elegant garb of Königsberg, Kant’s position differs in no way from that of the serpent in the garden of Eden.
In truth, as St. Thomas Aquinas says in On the Perfection of the Spiritual Life, obedience is the proper response of the creature, of the servant; it is the path of one who knows where he comes from and where he is going, who understands the primacy of his Maker and Lord, and trusts in his Providence. By humbly obeying God and His representatives on earth, man negates the illusion of autonomy and enters into the liberty of the children of God who are led by His Spirit of love, not by their own easily mistaken desires. In fact, Aquinas says that man makes a perfectoffering of himself not by giving up external goods, not even by giving up family ties and marriage, but only by giving up his own will as distinct from God’s—and therefore the one who longs for divine life can obtain it only by relinquishing his claims on any other life that he can call “his own.”
How, then, do we avoid the many evils of “blind” obedience to which we earlier referred?
In an absolute sense, it is not obedience that comes first, but truth and love; and this is why obedience rightly understood is not blind. In the order of being, there is first the truth, and the love of this truth; and then, obedience is the only appropriate response to truth, the only appropriate response of the will to truth that is to be loved for its own sake. Take away truth, and you take away love; take away love, and you take away the root of obedience. By the same token, take away obedience, and you will obscure the permanence and objectivity of the good loved, and undermine commitment to it; take away obedience, and you deny the sovereign rights of truth over your mind.
Within this Christian life, God places certain obligations on us, according to definite vocations. When a man and woman get married, they accept the duties of their state in life; they need to do whatever God asks them to do as spouses and parents. This is by no means easy, but it is a clear, concrete instance of obedience in action, and the experience of the saints has been that this obedience to one’s calling is liberating. It requires a death to self, to false autonomy—yet the end is not death, but resurrection, and the freedom of divine friendship.
Beyond the duty of our state in life, we are called to give obedience to all legitimate authority derived from God and exercised, at least obliquely, in His name. This would include our responsibilities as members of associations, employees in a business, citizens of a nation, and so forth. Surely there are dangers and complications involved in any of these areas. It is enough to say that the nearer one is to Jesus himself and His immaculate Bride, the Catholic Church, the more absolute is the obedience owed; the further away, the more qualified and in need of prudential judgment.
Jesus Christ gave us a single, visible Church that teaches with His own authority on all matters necessary for salvation and even for the modicum of human happiness that can be had in this life. The purpose of every gift He gives us is to lead us to union with Him, the Truth incarnate, the love of God made visible. So, whatever obedience we rightly offer is given, either directly or indirectly, to Christ the King and to His Church. It is our association with the King and our citizenship in His kingdom that dignifies our obedience to His vicegerents on earth. This is why Christian obedience is not only not the root of all evils, but is, instead, the protector and promoter of our happiness.
LOS ANGELES, California, October 18, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — Billionaire George Soros is “satanic,” a neo-Nazi collaborator hellbent on undermining Western civilization, says Hollywood movie star James Woods.
In a tweet last Saturday, Woods came out swinging against the billionaire.
“The degree to which this one Nazi collaborator has undermined the stability of Western democracies is virtually incalculable,” tweeted Woods. “He is satanic.”
Last week, the actor accused Soros in another tweet of being the money behind the Antifa movement in the United States.
Although members of the left-wing Antifa movement identify themselves as anti-fascist, their harassment and use of violence toward those they label fascists, racists or right-wing extremists has made them feared by their victims, many of whom seem to be attacked for no other reason than their political conservatism.
In that attack, the thugs used their boots, sticks, pepper spray and homemade shields, ironically bearing the words “No Hate” on them, as they assaulted their victims.
In a tweet last Wednesday, Woods said these thugs are backed by Soros’ money.
“Let’s be clear who the ‘Nazis’ are in America. It is #Antifa,” tweeted Woods. “And Antifa is the paramilitary wing of the Democratic Party, subsidized by Soros. #Antifa thugs are the paid brown shirts of today.”
Allegations that Soros is using his wealth to control political events throughout Western civilization have been circulating for years. In the United Kingdom, politician Nigel Farage said last year that Soros may be part of biggest “international political collusion in history.”
Although Hollywood is well-known for its anti-Catholic and left-wing bent, Woods is a conservative who has taken on not only Soros and Antifa thugs but also Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States.
In a tweet in May 2017, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards suggested the best way to say “I love you, Mom” on Mother’s Day was by standing up for abortion.
Woods put the abortionist in her place with a tweet of his own.
“Hard to say ‘I love you, Mom’ from a medical waste dumpster… #DefundPP,” he replied.
Beto O’Rourke bashed priest in 2011 for opposing homosexuality
Democrat Beto O’Rourke is running for U.S. Senate in Texas, challenging pro-life GOP incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz.
In June 2011, Catholic priest Fr. Michael Rodriguez spoke during an El Paso City Council meeting and argued against extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples. Then-Councilman O’Rourke lashed back, criticizing the priest for the “moral failings of the Church you represent, especially as you try to take the moral high-ground in this debate.”
“Luckily, I don’t need your approval to move forward,” O’Rourke quipped to the priest. “I want to know why this, for you, has become the burning issue of its day, and how you can stand here with a straight face and say that this is a priority for the Church.”
Father Rodriguez is a traditional priest who regularly offered the Traditional Latin Mass — also known as the Tridentine Mass, or the Extraordinary Form.
O’Rourke began lecturing Fr. Rodriguez about some of the problems he has with the Catholic Church:
I can think of two obvious cases where the Church has failed on a global level. For one, I know in the very recent past, the Pope, our current Pope, was in Africa, telling the people in that country [sic] who are suffering a holocaust of HIV and AIDS infection, not to use condoms. I can think of another very significant and serious problem within the Catholic Church, which is the proven widespread abuse of children within the care of the Catholic Church.
O’Rourke received applause as he said, “I wonder where your outspokenness is on those issues.”
A week later, a fellow city representative, Rachel Quintana, rebuked O’Rourke during a council meeting. She apparently said that his remarks were “totally out of line.”
But then-El Paso Mayor John Cook told Quintana she was out of time at the podium.
For the current Senate race in Texas, incumbent Republican Cruz is beating his Democrat foe in the polls.
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
In the face of the uphill battle, O’Rourke’s campaign recently raised a record-breaking $38.1 million in about three months. The previous record-holder for campaign fundraising in a Senate race was New York’s Rick Lazio. Running against Hillary Clinton for a Senate seat in 2000, Lazio raised some $22 million.
O’Rourke is pro-abortion. In April, he received a ringing endorsement from radical abortion lobbying group NARAL.
“Beto O’Rourke has fought tirelessly for women’s reproductive rights in Congress and he will do the same in the Senate,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL.
Hogue continued, “NARAL Pro-Choice America is proud to endorse him and to support his campaign.”
In contrast, Cruz has a reputation for being very pro-life.
During a recent debate, the issue of abortion came up. Cruz claimed, “I’m pro-life,” and he accused O’Rourke of wanting “taxpayer funding for abortions, late-term, even for illegal aliens.”
“The people of Texas and especially the Hispanic community, we don’t want to see taxpayer-funded … abortions and late-term abortions. That’s extreme,” said Cruz.
He added, “He’s voted for that — an extreme position. Fewer than nine percent of Texans agree with that.”
O’Rourke, meanwhile, reaffirmed his “pro-choice” position, saying, “I will only vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice who believes in a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her own body.”The people of Texas and especially the Hispanic community, we don’t want to see taxpayer-funded … abortions and late-term abortions. That’s extreme.Tweet
President Donald Trump has announced that he will stump for Cruz, his former opponent in the GOP presidential primaries, at a rally scheduled for Oct. 22 in Houston. After losing to Trump in the primaries, Cruz refused to endorse Trump at the 2016 Republican National Convention (RNC) — following months of bitter insults between the two.
In one infamous incident, Trump argued on Twitter that his wife was more attractive than Cruz’s. On another occasion, Trump claimed Cruz’s father was linked to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
When asked at the time why he didn’t endorse Trump at the RNC, Cruz said, “I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father.”
“I don’t know how much more I can take of this. Internally screaming isn’t doing it for me anymore.”
This comment, shared with me yesterday on social media, summed up the way so many Catholics – myself included – are feeling these days. Day after day, headline after headline, accusation after accusation from Christ’s own vicar that the faithful are on the side of the “Great Accuser” and are far too “rigid” and don’t even have the “Spirit of God.”
We feel abused. Beaten. Exhausted. Defeated.
We look at the mess, piling up higher and deeper with staggering speed, and wonder how in the world God is going to sort it all out. When people ask us what we think is going to happen next, our most common answer is “I don’t know.” We have no idea what to expect. Like a cliffhanger at the end of a television show, we cannot fathom a good ending to the arc of the story with things the way they are.
We are, in many respects, like a boxer on the ropes: not out for the count, not quite able to stay on our feet, somewhere between accepting that we’re beaten and stubbornly getting our hands up for another round.
I guarantee you, they are counting on us feeling this way.
It is impossible to accomplish true revolutionary change through incrementalism.
Saul Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals, “I start where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be … it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be.”
But he also wrote: “the major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
He also instructed his readers that “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
(Got that, you rigid Pharisees?)
Cloward and Piven, another pair of revolutionary radicals, designed a strategy that would overwhelm and collapse the system so they could replace it with the one they wanted. It was a process that would begin slowly but escalate over time.
Francis and his friends are not at all different. What began as subterfuge was designed to escalate. So said the pope’s friend and ghostwriter, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández, back in 2015 (emphasis added):
The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back.”
The interviewer then proceeded to ask him whether it does not help his adversaries when they know that Pope Francis says that his papacy might be short.
Fernández answered: “The pope must have his reasons, because he knows very well what he’s doing. He must have an objective that we don’t understand yet. You have to realize that he is aiming at reform that is irreversible. If one day he should sense that he’s running out of time and doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.
And so here we are, and they are throwing so much at us that we can barely keep up. After a year of battling over Amoris Laetitia, we were suddenly thrust back into a startling re-visitation of the clerical sex abuse crisis. Now it seems that each week, amid new stories of new accusations in dioceses around the world, more evidence is also emerging that the pope is personally involved in surrounding himself with and covering up for morally compromised men. Just this week, two more of his personally chosen and highest ranking prelates came under scrutiny for allegations of misconduct – homosexual behavior and abuse cover-up, respectively. One of those prelates was specifically warned about this in the testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, adding credibility to his claims.
But the media can focus on only so many things at a time. Right now, there’s a multi-week youth synod happening, and it is chumming the waters of Catholic discussion with an embarrassing array of modernist talking points. Whether it’s promotion of multiculturalism or “universal citizenship,” discussion of acceptance of homosexuals or “non-traditional families,” talking about a “vocabulary of dialogue” with other religions while avoiding using “traditional language” with youths under the assumption that they cannot understand it, every day of the synod presents a jaw-dropping display of tone-deafness to the real problems in the Church. It is impossible to ascertain through all the chatter what substantive “reforms” will come out once the sausage is done being made. But we are soon to be faced with a final document that – per the new apostolic constitution Epicopalis Communio – will become automatically part of the ordinary magisterium. That document, however, will be voted on by the Synod Fathers after having all 70 pages read to them aloud (but not, so far as we’ve yet been told, given to them in hard copy)! What could go wrong?
Meanwhile, we are told the pope has been seen wearing a rainbow cross not because of its immediate connotation of “LGBT” ideology, but because it is representative of various countries and cultures.
In an interview published today in La Civiltà Cattolica – the Jesuit publication run by papal “mouthpiece” Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S.J., with full oversight of the pope – Francis said, “I know that the Lord wants the Council to make headway in the Church. Historians tell us that it takes 100 years for a Council to be applied. We are halfway there. So, if you want to help me, do whatever it takes to move the Council forward in the Church.”
The revolution will be televised, telegraphed, and thrown in our faces – because they believe there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Their bravado, however, is not entirely convincing. In one of the synod pressers this week, Paolo Ruffini, the new layman at the helm of the Vatican Dicastery for Communications (who replaced Msgr. Dario Edoardo Vigano of “lettergate” infamy) says there have been discussions of a “more official platform in the digital world” for the Vatican to combat “fanatical interpretations” on the internet.
Amid the low rolling plains, where the coastal mountains dot the northwest corner of Ireland, lies the beautiful county of Donegal. There, in the rural village of Gortahork, where Gaelic primarily is spoken among the 1,600 residents, lies the Catholic Parish of Criost Ri (Christ the King). Known for its natural diverse, rugged beauty, Gortahork is infamous – not as the home of Gerry Adams, the leader of the Sinn Féin political party, but for the wreckage of many young lives. Tragically, this beautiful, quaint hamlet harbors a dark and menacing secret.
Clerical sex abuse hangs like a fog over this village. Across the road from Christ the King Church lies its Catholic cemetery. The Celtic cross gravestones jut above ground like the Errigal Mountain off in the distance. Herein, buried in the graveyard, among Donegal’s aged dead, lie the graves of eight young men who committed suicide. All eight were victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Their deaths symbolize the unrelenting pain and trauma gripping victims of clerical sex abuse around the world – eight young Donegal men tortured with the vile memories of their spiritual and sexual assault by trusted priests.
Clerical sex abuse is soul murder. The body and soul are violated by the predator priest. Nothing remains but a brittle and broken shell of a person.
Child advocates and law enforcement who have investigated know that clerical sex abuse is unique from all other abuse. Clerical sex abuse leaves its victims with physical, emotional, and spiritual devastation. So devastated are clerical victims that they more often turn to suicide for relief from the shame and memories of their assault.
Why do so many victims of clerical abuse take their own lives? What causes the high incidence of suicide among victims of clerical sex abuse?
The answer may lie in the hideous nature of child sexual abuse by a man of God. The grooming words of notorious sexual predator Cardinal McCarrick are instructive. They portray the depth of depravity and spiritual torture employed by clerical abusers.
James, the 11-year-old McCarrick victim, recalls the spiritual power trip utilized by the offending priest: “He would always tell me that I was his special boy, that God gave me to him, so we could worship together and be happy together. He told me he had the power to get God to forgive me all my sins. That my father didn’t have that power. That’s the aura.”
The predator priest often uses God to groom the victim. How perfect, to subdue and intimidate a child! When the powerful predator invokes God as a consenting participant in the abuse, the child victim is left defenseless, devoid of spiritual help. The abuser supplants God as a willing cooperator in order to diabolically silence the victim into submission. As James recounts, McCarrick told him hundreds and hundreds of times, “God will only listen to you when you are with me.”
The unique and heinous spiritual abuse perpetrated upon clerical sex abuse victims robs these children of hope and escape. Their world is turned upside-down, with God not as their savior, but as their tormentor. The priest, portraying himself as in persona Christi, sadistically warps any sense of good and evil for the child. He loses all hope. For the soul tormented with utter hopelessness, no belief in a better future, no chance of recovery, it seems that only suicide remains.
In his response to the Archbishop Viganò testament about McCarrick’s history of predation and the Vatican’s knowledge of it, Cardinal Marc Ouellet callously dismissed McCarrick’s crimes and thus exposed the Vatican’s disdain for the suffering of clerical sex abuse victims:
I strongly doubt that McCarrick was of interest to him [Pope Francis] to the point that you believed him to be, since at the moment he was an 82-year-old archbishop emeritus who had been without an appointment for seven years.
In essence, Ouellet provides the excuse that since McCarrick is an old man, despite decades of abuse, which was never prosecuted or investigated by the Church, he is given a papal pass.
Pennsylvania attorney general Josh Shapiro referenced the number of suicide victims in his press conference when he unveiled the damning Pennsylvania clergy abuse report in August.
The effects of sexual abuse on the victims vary, but the impact is long lasting and may result in sexual depersonalization, depression, sexually acting out, and suicide. When a child has been victimized by a priest, the impact of the abuse effects how the child perceives God, the Church and the clergy. The abuse also raises the question as to how these institutions will view the victim.
Australia, Ireland, and America seem to be especially vulnerable to the suicide ticking time bomb among clergy abuse victims.
CONFIDENTIAL police reports have detailed the suicides of at least 40 people sexually abused by Catholic clergy in Victoria, and have urged a new inquiry into these and many other deaths suspected to be linked to abuse in the church.
In a damning assessment of the church’s handling of abuse issues, the reports say it appears the church has known about a shockingly high rate of suicides and premature deaths but has “chosen to remain silent.”
The reports state that while conducting lengthy inquiries into paedophile clergy, investigators have discovered “an inordinate number of suicides which appear to be a consequence of sexual offending.”
“The number of people contacting this office to report members of their family, people they know, people they went to school with, who have taken their lives is constant. It would appear that an investigation would uncover many more deaths as a consequence of clergy sexual abuse,” one of the reports states.
Dr. A.W. Richard Sipe, the prominent expert and child advocate for clergy abuse victims, who died during this past summer of shame, delivered a prescient 16-page plea to San Diego bishop Robert McElroy in 2016. The letter warned McElroy about McCarrick’s sexual predation and the fatal effects of clergy abuse. Sipe pleaded with Bishop McElroy:
I have tried to help the Church understand and heal the wounds of sexual abuse by clergy. My services have not been welcomed.
My appeal to you has been for pastoral attention to victims of abuse and the long term consequences of that violation. This includes the effects of suicidal attempts. Only a bishop can minister to these wounds.
It is apparent that Francis, the bishop of Rome, is uninterested in ministering to these wounds. He dismisses them as “rumors” and intimates that those who blow the whistle are in league the devil, the “great Accuser, who roams the world looking for ways to accuse.”
Time has run out for this papacy. The global sex abuse scandal has engulfed Francis and his cabal with his inaction over, promotion of, and facilitation of predatory clerics. His papacy is mired in corruption, apathy, and malfeasance over his total abdication of responsibility for this massive crisis.
The Irish are known for their long memories and fiery tempers. The Donegal winds blow a menacing warning from the graves of the eight young men of Gortahork. Their now silenced voices cry out for vengeance and justice against the Church and its pope, who dismisses their pain and abuse as mere rumors.
There’s an old Gaelic saying that Pope Francis should heed: “Truth speaks even though the tongue were dead.” We will not forget the boys of Donegal. Eternal rest grant to them, O Lord.
NIH Spends $13.5 Million on Aborted Baby Parts to Transplant Their Brain Tissue Into Mice
NATIONAL MICAIAH BILGER OCT 17, 2018 | 4:36PM WASHINGTON, DC
A new government contract uncovered by CNS News shows the federal government continues to spend taxpayer dollars on research using aborted baby body parts.
The National Institute of Health contract is with University of California- San Francisco. The contract provides money for fetal body parts to conduct experiments involving “humanized mice,” according to the report. NIH is an agency under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The contract, which began in December 2013 continues through December 2020, according to NIH.
“The actual total amount of this contract, including all options, is $13,799,501 for a full performance period through December 5, 2020,” the NIH told CNSNews.com. “We have obligated $9,554,796 to date.”
Aborted baby body parts used in the experiments were taken from healthy, later-term unborn babies. According to the report, the aborted babies were 18 to 24 weeks gestation from “women with normal pregnancies before elective termination for nonmedical reasons.”
Another article indicated aborted babies’ livers and thymuses also were used. According to the report:
Similarly, a 2008 journal article describing how the UCSF professor who is the principle investigator for this contract engineers one version of the mouse required by the contract, said the professor used human fetal livers and thymuses taken from babies at 20-to-24 weeks gestational age.
While the NIH did respond to CNSNews.com’s inquiry about the monetary value of these two contracts, it did not specifically respond to sixteen questions about its current “Humanized Mouse Models for HIV Therapeutics Development” contract with UCSF. CNSNews.com sent these questions to the Department of Health and Human Services (of which NIH is a part) and UCSF. NIH and the University of California responded with statements.
President Donald Trump’s administration has been taking steps to stop the purchasing of aborted baby parts with tax dollars.
In September, it canceled a Food and Drug Administration contract to acquire body parts from aborted babies to be transplanted into so-called humanized mice. The grisly experiments allow mice to have a functioning human immune system for research purposes.
Although the move was a good step, one pro-life group said more protections are needed to ensure the FDA and HHS do not sign other agreements to purchase aborted baby parts in the future.
“Canceling a single contract and conducting a review is a small step forward, but overall is completely inadequate,” said Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser in a statement.
The department appears to be moving in that direction. In a statement in September, the Trump administration said HHS is also conducting an audit of all acquisitions involving human fetal tissue to “ensure conformity with procurement and human fetal tissue research laws and regulations.”
The agency said it would continue reviewing alternatives to human fetal tissue in HHS funded research “and will ensure that efforts to develop such alternatives are funded and accelerated.”
Brief Answers to Big Questions is Stephen Hawking’s last book. His family finished the manuscript that he started, launching the book this week, six months after the famous physicist died. The media hullaballoo over the book centers mostly on his professed atheism. CNN shouted Hawking’s conclusion, “There is no God,” calling it a “bombshell.”
It is hardly a “bombshell” to learn that a celebrated atheist was an atheist. Hawking never declared himself a religious man, though his atheism was always shaky. Just last year, in a book about him by Kitty Ferguson, he was asked why there is a universe. “If I knew that,” he answered, “then I would know everything important.” He added, “then we would know the mind of God.”
Now we are told that in his new book, at the end of his life, he was more sure of his atheist convictions. “Do I have faith? We are each free to believe what we want,” Hawking said, “and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God…No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads to a profound realisation: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either.” Probably. Which means there may be.
Why did Hawking hedge? And why would a brilliant man who supposedly understands elements of the universe that are too complex and difficult for most of us to understand settle the question of God’s existence by choosing “the simplest explanation” available?
Would it not be just as simple to adopt Pascal’s answer to the wager he proffered? The wager entailed the consequences of believing in God versus not believing. The 17th century French philosopher said it was wiser to err on the side of caution. “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.”
A popular reconstruction of Pascal’s wager goes like this: “If I believe in God and life after death and you do not, and if there is no God, we both lose when we die. However, if there is a God, you still lose and I gain everything.”
This is clearly one of the “simplest” alternatives to Hawking’s position. It also has the merit of being more persuasive—to lose the wager is to lose it all.
It is fascinating to learn that while Hawking cannot conceive of a personal God, and doubts there is life after death, he believes in life in outer space. In Brief Answers to Big Questions, he confesses his belief in aliens. Great. But for a guy who insists on scientific evidence for everything else, where is the proof?
Why would Hawking believe in aliens? In the book by Ferguson, he says, “We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburbs of one of a hundred thousand million galaxies.” He is entitled to believe that human beings are “insignificant creatures,” but he has no empirical evidence to support it.
It would have helped had Hawking identified who the significant creatures are and where they live. But he never did. More important, why is it rational for him to believe in aliens but irrational for me to believe in God?
Where Hawking fails, as do all atheists, is in responding to the central issue involving the origin of the universe. Saint John Paul II said it best. “Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived,” he said in a 1981 Vatican conference on cosmology, “leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself, science cannot resolve this problem….”
How much of Hawking’s atheism was a function of his disability (he suffered from Lou Gehrig’s disease for most of his adult life) is uncertain, but in his last book he makes this an issue. “For centuries,” he said, “it was believed that disabled people like me were living under a curse that was inflicted by God. I prefer to think that everything can be explained another way, by the laws of nature.”
It is true that in the ancient world it was believed that the disabled must have done something wrong to merit their condition. But Hawking should have updated his readings.
Jesus healed the sick, the blind, the lame—everyone in need of help—and the religion he founded does not abandon the disabled. On the contrary, it tends to their suffering. Christians have had a phenomenal record treating the handicapped of every malady, mental and physical alike. So to invoke centuries-old beliefs (many born of paganism for that matter) as a way of indicting religion today is simply wrong.
Christians believe in mysteries, and so did Hawking, albeit of a different kind. Pascal believed in mysteries as well, but he was much more rational than Hawking.
Cocaine-snorting sacriligious faggot Msgr. Luigi Capozzi and his sugar daddy, Cardinal Coccopalmerio.
Last week LifeSite News broke the news that Antipope Bergoglio’s top aide, the revolting sodomite Cardinal Coccopalmerio, was not only present at the “cocaine-fueled gay orgy” in the apartment of his “personal secretary”, Msgr. Luigi Capozzi in the palace of the Holy Office – the same building that houses not only the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which is responsible for investigating sex abuse cases), but also the Ecclesiae Dei commission, which oversees all of the communities that celebrate the Traditional Mass -but that Coccopalmerio was “presiding” over the orgy and was whisked away to safety by the Vatican Gendarmerie who conducted the raid. And Antipope Bergoglio knows it.
I think a lot of people glazed over this story, as there was so much else going on both in Church events, and in secular events (Kavanaugh, Hurricane Michael, etc.). What I want to point out is the very telling use of the word “presiding”. Coccopalmerio was not merely participating in the sodomite orgy, he was PRESIDING over it.The word “orgy” implies a chaotic, disorganized activity. It can be used as a crude colloquialism for any large, disorganized activity or action. “The buffet dinner at the Greek wedding was a gastronomic orgy.” Folks, orgies, kinda by definition, don’t have “presiders”. It’s a contradiction of terms. The word “presiding” communicates an organized, even ritualistic activity.
A big trend among the Bergoglian Antichurch crowd is to call the priest at Mass “the presider”.Given what we know about the abject evil of Cardinal Coccopalmerio, the fact that he is a flaming faggot that hates God and is at war with Him and His Holy Church, and given that we know that the nexus of the practice of Satanism in the world today is inside the Vatican, I think it is not at all a stretch to postulate that what was raided in that apartment was not merely a sodomite orgy, but was a Black Mass with Cardinal Coccopalmerio as the “presider”.Cocaine-snorting sacriligious faggot Msgr. Luigi Capozzi and his satanic sugar daddy, Cardinal Coccopalmerio.